Note: Reading books by philosiphers or any other form of scientist, can be rather boring, but for anyone who is willing to try, here's some tools to help you make sense of it;
-Though they enjoy using big words and making their explinations as long as possible, most of the things they say can be broken down into a 'dummies' version.
If you struggle with translating their words into the 'dummies' version, I would suggest you get a dictionary, and a pen and paper to use for translation purposes. And chocolate, and a yummy drink. Those are probably the best tools you'll get to make the process easier. :)

Opinions VS facts: One thing you have to know before even considering opening a book like 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins or 'The Origan Of Species' by Charles Darwin, is that much of the writing is their personal opinion.
You'll likely have to read at least several pages before you find any facts or discoveries. This is all well and good, but the problem is, people give way too much credit to these opinions and don't actually take the time to find out what led them to that particular opinion. This brings me to one of my favorite quotes;

"Nonsense remains nonsense, even when spoken by famous scientists." -John Lennox

Example: Theoretical physicist and nobel prize winner Steven Weinberg came out in favor of a 'steady state universe' saying: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing spontaneously. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something instead of nothing; why the universe exists, why we exist. It's not necessary to involk God to set the universe in motion." 

Okay, that was a bit of a mouthful, but I want to point out to you the lack of physical evidence here. If you study the statement, you'll find that Steven Weinberg is using circular reasoning. This means that he's basically saying; the universe exists because it had to exist, and it therefore created itself. Furthermore, there is no explination for the supposed 'pre-existance' of gravity.

This example is one of many you can find when reading the books I've mentioned.

The many gaps: I once read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, and in it he was talking about the gaps within the theory of evolution. For the most part he was mocking creationists and spouting off his personal opinion about them, but at one point he explained that the gaps within the theory are slowly being filled in, lessened into more smaller ones, and that creationists are considering the number of gaps to have grown.

Now I'm not going to start spouting my personal opinion on this, but I ask you to look at the logic; through two years of research, I've found that often when one problem arises within a particular part of the theory, they can often find on explination. But then a problem arises within that explination, and they come up with another explination for the problem within the first explination. This can go on and on, but usually stops by the third attempt and they just leave it at an assumption.

But if you can disprove that assumption, it has a domino effect on all the previous explinations, because they all depend on the next to be correct. Take out the final assumption, and you've knocked out all the explinations, bringing you right back to square one; the error within a particular part of the evolution theory.

The point of this lengthly explination, in simplicity, is that, while scientists are constantly coming up with more and more to fill in the gaps, they often don't take the time to fully weed out the errors. From everything I've seen, they often just build upon the errors, making the foundation of their theory weak.

I hope that this has been helpful, and if there's anything I've missed here please let me know with a comment.